About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
MSNBCW 12
MSNBC 6
CNNW 4
WBAL (NBC) 2
CSPAN 1
CSPAN2 1
WRC 1
LANGUAGE
English 37
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)
these are people who spent their whole lives dealing with the fall-out of roe v. wade. they have seen what it's done the court and the country. further more, they can see the political movement is accelerating among the people and there may not be a need for court. >> john: snarl >> ironically, justice ginsberg stalwart liberal of court in a speech before going on the court talked about roe v. wade as stopping the natural evolution and political accept tans of what was the more changing on abortion and that it caused the strife. the one lesson is that allow the process to develop through referenda and popular vote. if there is a change in the culture, it will happen. do not impose a rule on the country from above, because if they impose on the country same-sex marriage, it will cause the reaction on abortion. people will feel they don't have a voice and they should in a democracy. >> john: all right. you won this week's viewers' choice, 74% goes to you. what is the question? >> landslide. the question is in three months, will bashar assad be president of syria? in exile in iran or russia? or
, especially justice roberts court is wary of roe v. wade and will not throw out arrangements in 30 or 40 states and will resolve the case. only section 3 is as issue. i believe the court does not want to be overturning arrangements throughout the country on something to delicate. they've learned a lesson that that's not the right role. >> that's talk about that. people are making the comparison to 1973, roe v. wade. 37 states, by law or in their constitutions now ban same-sex marriage but they're legal in nine states as well as the nation's capital, washington, d.c. a new poll, 40% say they approve same-sex marriage. 30% support legal unions, 24% say same-sex couples should not be allowed to enter in any union. president obama has come out in favor of same-sex marriage though he wants to leave it to the state issue. some people as bill suggested are comparing this to the 70s when opinion was evolving on abortion. the states seemed to work it out and the court came down with a big ruling and 40 years later we're having a holy war on the issue. how do you see the court reacting? do you see
ruling. if the supreme court does for gay marriage what it did for abortion and roe v. wade and said, no, this is not in the hands of the people. we're going to say there's gay marriage, that would do a lot to fire up the republican base and could turn this issue on its head and it could become a big winner for republicans because they'd feel disenfranchised. >> what about the flip side? what if the republican goes that way, their base doesn't get fired up. democrats have relied on saying to some voters, that other party is not with you. if the republican got with them, does that take this off the table for democrats? >> well, i actually think it takes it off the table and that's good news for americans in general. i mean, i think this issue is a little bit broader than politics. and i know that's weird to say here in washington, but what i think the problem with the stance that the republican party has taken right now is that it's on the wrong side of history. and we have seen throughout history that when there's a group of people that want to deny another group of people less rights an
. they expect the supreme court to be the ultimate decider for the nation. >> it would be the roe v. wade of our generation. >> reporter: they have their critics, conservative legal analyst ed whalen. >> there is nothing in the constitution properly construing that remotely supports a right to same sex marriage. >> reporter: and even some of those who agree with olson and boies say that same sex marriage should be left to the states. there are lots of skeptics out there who say you're going too quickly here, and you're asking the supreme court to do a pretty heavy lift. >> every civil rights struggle, there have always been people who said you're moving too fast, country is not ready for it. how many people in 1954 were saying, country is not ready for desegregation, brown against board of education, too soon. >> reporter: but everyone says this is a conservative court. why are you doing it now? >> because ted is a conservative guy. there are lots of conservative people, the idea that civil rights and human rights is exclusively a liberal preserve, i think it is flat wrong. >> reporter: their cl
by the supreme court could result in the roe v. wade of guy rights. joining me now is political strategist steve elmendorf and chris geithner, senior political reporter for buzz feed. steve, i want to go to you first on this. there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of back and forth whether it's a good thing for marriage equality for the supreme court to take up these issues. some folks think better to leave it at the state level. there has been a lot of progress there. are you bullish or bearish on this? >> i'm bullish. i think the supreme court is going to do the right thing. you know, it's hard to predict, but i think the country has been moving so fast in the right direction. the court is not immune to public opinion. the court is not immune to the wind blowing through the country. and it's so clear where we're moving and the progress we've made in the last five years has been amazing. and i think the court is going to do the right thing. >> chris, let's talk a little bit about public opinion. because we have some polling that shows a breathtaking change of public opinion on this. in 20
. if it did that, that might result in what would essentially be the roe v. wade of gay rights. alex. >> taking up this prop 8 with california, would their ruling necessarily apply then only to california? >> that's possible. it's possible, because the appeals court ruling that comes to the supreme court was designed to apply only to california. what it said is once a state grants an essential right like this, it can't then take it away. remember in 2008 early in the year, this california supreme court permitted same-sex couples to get married, about 18,000 of them did. then prop 8 was passed in the general election putting a stop to it. so if the court just stops there, you're right. it would be a ruling that would apply only to california. if it decides to take that case and get to the constitutional question of whether any state for any reason can deny same-sex marriage couples the right to get married, then it would play nationwide. >> good to see you, pete. thank you. >> you bet. my pleasure. >> now the question of the day. what do you expect the supreme court to do on gay marri
of the same-sex marriage issue, and that could result in what would eventually be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> we are back on a big story that will become an even bigger story when we move forward, and that's the question of marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the country. speaker gingrich, you oppose same-sex marriage. do you think the tide is turning? we know it's turning in terms of public opinion. what does it mean they are taking this on? >> the justices looked at the question, if you're an american citizen and you are legally married in iowa, what happens if you visit another state and you end up in the hospital? do you have any visitation rights? once this has begun to move, it is going -- it is so complicated that i think the court felt almost compelled as a national institution to look at it. >> and i think, lawrence, as i have talked to lawyers about this, what people need to understand is that there is the question of your ability to have benefits. this is not whether the defense of marriage act is completely thrown out. that is that question. and then prop 8 in ca
. when roe v. wade was decided abortion was legal in only four states. you look at the numbers on gay marriage. 1996 compared to today. in 1996 27% of the country thought gay marriage should be valid. by 2012 it's 50%. as someone who works closely on this issue, what do we owe that almost sea change in public opinion to? >> i think a big -- the recent sea change, i think a lot we owe to president obama, his leadership. i think he particularly, the african-american community, i think his speaking out on this has made a big deal. the other thing i think that's made a big deal is the visibility of gay and lesbian people. the more -- the court is not immune to that. the more people meet gay people as their clerk oorz family members or their friends or neighbors, the more they realize that this notion that they shouldn't be able to get married, which is a deeply conservative institution, the idea that two people can't love each other and get -- be in a stable relationship, which is family values, it's ridiculous. that's why we have people like ted olson who is, you know, a very conservativ
by next summer that is groundbreaking for gay marriage rights as roe v. wade was for abortion in the 1970s, potentially at least after they agreed hear arguments on the defense of marriage act and proposition 8. justice correspondent pete williams joins me. pete, the fact that they took both of these cases, what is the significance from your analysis? >> well, it's the prop 8 case, andrea, that could be the biggy. it could be very narrow. the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must permit same-sex marriage, it only says if they do, the federal government must recognize them. so it's the proposition 8 case from california that potentially raise
liberate california or create a gay roe v. wade. s acceptance is only growing. kennedy can only give the gay rights movement a decisive final victory. the train that is the gay rights movement cannot be stopped. gays will continue coming out and demanding rights and suing for equality until they win. because as edie said, marriage matters. the opposition can only build dams to hold off the inevitable tidal wave of justice because we're talking about something fundamental in society, the right to choose your nuclear family without being penalized. the right to have your relationship respected. isn't that what the pursuit of happiness is about? for me the pursuit of happiness though is tossing to martin bashir. >> thank you, toure. and you have stolen some of my time so i'm not going to talk to you. good afternoon. it's monday, december the 10th, and this thing is going to get a whole lot uglier before it gets better. ♪ >> we'd like to announce we have reached an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. >> get in a room and make the changes that are needed. >> it sounds like the pre
. and in 1973 when roe v wade was decided, abortion was legal in only four states. given the court's historic inclination to favor expansion of freedoms, even when public opinion is not on its side, it would seem plausible the justices will conform what a majority believe is right and up hold the constitutionality of marriage equality. if this is in fact the result, president obama will guide one of the last remaining civil rights battles to completion. a moment that may come to define his presidency as much as anything he has done to date. similarly on the subject of immigration, president obama has made clear that comprehensive immigration reform will happen in the next four years. stung by rue milluating losses at the polls in november, the gop understands the problems its faces among the young, the brown and the young and brown. the only question is just how long it takes the republican party to come to terms with this. if conservatives are smart they will try to find a seat at the table. less the president and the democratic party secure the votes of every single one of the 11.1 undocume
to liberate california or create a gay roe v. wade. s acceptance is only growing. kennedy can only give the gay rights movement a decisive final
become more divisive than roe v. wade decision. this was troubling. ruth bader ginsburg who is one of the most liberal justices, she in february questioned the timing of the abortion decision and suggests it may have contributed to the on-going bitter debate about abortion. not that the judgment was wrong but it moved too far, too fast. that was from ginsburg. those are the things that make you worry. a little shpilka in my kinectazoid. chris perry who i love is a lot more selfish than i am. [ applause ] they could have gotten married today if they had not taken the course. she said as much as sandy and i want to be married we want everyone in the united states to be able to be married. we've learned to be patient of the process. what we wanted was the biggest boldest outcome as possible. that's still what i'm hoping for so there! [ applause ] hmm! that's what ted olson thinks. he knows a little something a little something a little something about law. joe in pittsburgh, you're on the "the stephanie miller show
of the same-sex marriage issue. that might result in what would essentially be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> thanks for that. >>> back to you, molly. you were doing a big piece of this for "the atlantic" for next week. what did you find most interesting in your research thus far? >> the really amazing thing about this issue is how far public opinion has come in a relatively short time on the scale of sort of large-scale social change. when gallup recently polled public opinion on gay marriage, it had the support of 53% of the american public. back in 1996 that was 27%. and that was the atmosphere in which president clinton and the congress were passing the defense of marriage act. since then, every single appellate court that has considered it has ruled against it. that's something that advocates feel very confident about the supreme court going their way. on the proposition 8 case, advocates are a little bit more nervous. this is a conservative court. and if they do rule against proposition 8 and gay marriage in california, that would strike a blow against gay marriage that could last f
roe v. wade and all of that. but this is happening at record pace, more so than i think any civil rights battle. somebody made the point it was because -- more and more people obviously have learned that they know somebody gay, whereas obviously they were saying that the civil rights movement you didn't suddenly discover someone is black. >> right. >> stephanie: but i think as you say they do look at politics, look at the same polling we have, and look at the arc of history, and say a kennedy has the chance to do the brown versus board of education of our time. >> sure. we don't know who voted to take up the proposition 8 case, right? at least four justices have to be supportive of the coming on board. could it have been for liberal justices thinking that kennedy, the presumed swing vote might be with them or those opposed to marriage equality presuming that kennedy might be with them. but i think that the court despite being above the fray, as it were it interacted with the political realities and the world, so it is standoffish but it cannot help being effec
to decide. they reached out in roe v. wade. they reached out in lawrence v. texas, the gay rights case. the people who don't want them to reach out in this case, many of them, do want them to reach out anytime it helps their cause. and maybe they even reached out in the chada case which is alan's case. and my point there is the court shouldn't just make things up, but they are to a large extent a policy-making body. it's evolved that way. that's what they do. they take cases, and they decide broader principles under those cases. and here we have a very serious problem that i think justifies a little stretching not, in my opinion, to ban racial preferences, but to impose the kind of remedies we suggest, transparency and a socioeconomic component. because as our book details, every other institution in american society has failed to come to grips with this problem. the universities systematically mislead applicants and the rest of the country over how it works. the politicians are terrified of it. no major politician has attacked affirmative action publicly in about 20 years. not 20, may
diminished by these activist judges. actually roe v. wade a took away the right to life. we encourage the culture of death by giving money to planned parenthood that kill more people. it's terrible what happened in connecticut, but unborn persons killed with the support of taxpayer money, these are persons, too. host heast your response. guest: i don't see the connection here. and of course, we have seen gun violence against those who actually do provide reproductive services and abortion services, gun violence against doctors. i don't see the connection between the two issues. i do think the respect for life is something we have built on in this country and that means different things to different people. i would respectfully disagree with you on the connection between gun violence and the opportunity for women and their families to make reproductive decisions independent of government intervention. host: chris in florida, democratic caller. caller: i used to hunt and i got rid of my guns. i believe there is one bill that should be put up there and that's that any agent of the federa
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)